IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0068903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cemented versus Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures in Elderly Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tao Li
  • Qianyu Zhuang
  • Xisheng Weng
  • Lei Zhou
  • Yanyan Bian

Abstract

Objective: Controversy still exists regarding using cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two surgical techniques in femoral neck fracture patients over 70 years old. Methods: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI and VIP Database from inception to December 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest include postoperative hip function, residue pain, complication rates, mortality, reoperation rate, operation time and intraoperative blood loss. Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) from each trial were pooled using random-effects model or fixed-effects model given on the heterogeneity of the included studies. Results: 7 RCTs involving 1,125 patients (1,125 hips) were eligible for meta-analysis. Our results demonstrate that cemented hemiarthroplasty is associated with better postoperative hip function (OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.31–0.76; P = 0.002), lower residual pain (OR = 0.43, 95%CI, 0.29–0.64; P

Suggested Citation

  • Tao Li & Qianyu Zhuang & Xisheng Weng & Lei Zhou & Yanyan Bian, 2013. "Cemented versus Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures in Elderly Patients: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-13, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0068903
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068903
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068903&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0068903?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0068903. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.